Summary#

This bill creates a new Criminal Code offence for “coercive control of an intimate partner.” It targets a pattern of conduct that makes a partner believe their safety is threatened, including psychological safety. It updates related laws on bail, courtroom procedures, DNA orders, sex‑offender registration, firearms licensing, and tax/excise information sharing.

• Defines coercive control as a pattern that can include violence or threats, sexual coercion, controlling a partner’s movements, money, health care, beliefs, work or school, and threats of self‑harm (Criminal Code s. 264.01(2)).
• Sets intent or recklessness standards and recognizes psychological safety (s. 264.01(1), (5)).
• Creates a hybrid offence with a maximum of 10 years in prison on indictment (s. 264.01(4)).
• Limits self‑represented accused from personally cross‑examining the victim; counsel is appointed (s. 486.3(2)).
• Adds the offence to bail provisions for weapons prohibitions, DNA order eligibility, and sex‑offender registration eligibility (ss. 515(4.1), 487.04(c)(v.1), 490.011(1)(a)(ix.1)).
• Updates firearms licensing criteria and allows tax and excise authorities to share information for investigations of this offence (Firearms Act s. 5(2)(a)(iii); Income Tax Act s. 241(9.5)(a)(i)(D); Excise statutes).

What it means for you#

• Households and intimate partners

  • Certain ongoing controlling behaviours in a relationship can be charged as a crime if they form a pattern that could reasonably cause fear for safety, including psychological safety (Criminal Code s. 264.01(2), (5)). Takes effect on a date set by the Governor in Council (Coming into Force).
  • Covered acts include threats or use of violence against the partner, their child or someone they know, harm to a pet, sexual coercion, monitoring or limiting movements or social life (including by phone or online), controlling money, work, school, health care or medication, pressuring appearance or gender expression, restricting beliefs or language, and threatening suicide or self‑harm (s. 264.01(2)(a)–(c)).

• Victims and witnesses

  • In these cases, a self‑represented accused cannot personally cross‑examine you unless the judge finds it necessary for justice; if barred, the court appoints counsel to conduct the cross‑examination (s. 486.3(2)).
  • Psychological safety is expressly protected, not only physical safety (s. 264.01(5)).

• Accused persons and defendants

  • The offence is hybrid: prosecutors may proceed summarily or by indictment; the maximum penalty on indictment is up to 10 years (s. 264.01(4)).
  • Courts may order you to provide a DNA sample upon conviction because the offence is a “secondary designated offence” (s. 487.04(c)(v.1), with orders governed by s. 487.051).
  • You may be ordered to register under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act if statutory criteria are met, because the offence is listed as a “secondary offence” (s. 490.011(1)(a)(ix.1), with orders under s. 490.012).
  • On release, courts must consider adding a condition prohibiting possession of firearms and related items; if the court finds it desirable for safety, it must impose the condition (s. 515(4.1) as amended; s. 515(4.3)(b)).

• Gun owners and applicants

  • Firearms licensing officials must consider a conviction for this new offence when assessing eligibility, which can lead to refusal or revocation (Firearms Act s. 5(2)(a)(iii) as amended).
  • Bail conditions for this offence can include weapons prohibitions if needed for safety (Criminal Code s. 515(4.1)).

• Military members

  • In military proceedings for the equivalent offence under s. 130, a self‑represented accused may not personally cross‑examine the victim; appointed defence counsel will do so (National Defence Act s. 183.3(2)).

• Taxpayers and businesses

  • Tax and excise authorities may share otherwise confidential information for investigations or proceedings involving this offence, consistent with existing rules for listed serious crimes (Income Tax Act s. 241(9.5)(a)(i)(D); Excise Tax Act s. 295(5.04)(a)(i)(D); Excise Act, 2001 s. 211(6.4)(a)(i)(D)).

• Police, prosecutors, and courts

  • The offence requires proof of a “pattern of conduct” and either intent to cause fear for safety or recklessness about causing that fear (Criminal Code s. 264.01(1)–(2)).
  • Courts must consider relationship context and vulnerability when assessing the conduct (s. 264.01(3)).

• Timing

  • The law takes effect on a date fixed by Order in Council; no start date is specified in the bill (Coming into Force).

Expenses#

• Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No fiscal note or appropriation is included in the bill text. It creates a new criminal offence and related procedural changes but does not authorize new spending (Bill, Criminal Code amendments; Consequential Amendments).

• Potential impacts on policing, courts, legal aid, and corrections are not quantified in public documents. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Fills a gap by criminalizing a sustained pattern of coercive control, not only isolated acts, allowing earlier intervention before physical harm occurs (Criminal Code s. 264.01(2), (3), (5)). Assumes earlier intervention will reduce harm; supporting data not provided in the bill.
• Provides clearer guidance by listing common controlling behaviours, including financial control, surveillance, and threats of self‑harm (s. 264.01(2)(c)). Assumes lists will improve charging consistency.
• Recognizes psychological safety explicitly, aligning the law with modern understanding of abuse (s. 264.01(5)).
• Enhances victim protections by limiting personal cross‑examination by the accused and appointing counsel instead (s. 486.3(2)).
• Strengthens public safety tools: eligibility for DNA orders and sex‑offender registration may help investigations and monitoring of high‑risk offenders (ss. 487.04(c)(v.1); 490.011(1)(a)(ix.1)). Assumes these tools improve outcomes; quantitative impact not provided.
• Improves safety at release by requiring courts to consider, and where warranted impose, weapons prohibitions on bail (s. 515(4.1)).

Opponents' View#

• Risk of vagueness and overbreadth: the offence covers “any other conduct” that could reasonably be expected to cause fear for safety, including psychological safety, which may be subjective and vary by context (Criminal Code s. 264.01(2)(c), (5)). Could lead to inconsistent application.
• Overlap with existing offences (e.g., assault, sexual assault, criminal harassment) may duplicate tools rather than create new ones, increasing complexity and potential for “charge stacking” (ss. 264, 271–273; new s. 264.01).
• Proof challenges: establishing a “pattern of conduct,” intent or recklessness, and the “reasonable” expectation of fear may be difficult, potentially leading to low conviction rates or prolonged cases (s. 264.01(1)–(2)).
• Resource strain: new offence could increase investigations, prosecutions, and need for appointed cross‑examination counsel, with budget impacts not assessed in the bill. Data unavailable.
• Privacy and collateral effects: adding the offence to tax and excise information‑sharing lists expands when confidential taxpayer information can be disclosed (Income Tax Act s. 241(9.5)(a)(i)(D); Excise statutes). Assumes disclosure risks outweigh public safety benefits; no quantified evidence in the bill.
• Firearms and registry consequences: listing the offence for firearms licensing consideration and for DNA/SOIRA eligibility may impose significant collateral penalties after conviction; critics may question proportionality for non‑physical conduct cases (Firearms Act s. 5(2)(a)(iii); Criminal Code ss. 487.04(c)(v.1), 490.011(1)(a)(ix.1)).